Luevano v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
660 F.3d 1207 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (§ 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Frisbie v. Collins · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza · Ker v. People of the State of Illinois · Kucana v. Holder · 24 I. & N. Dec. 785 - HASHMI
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.”); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 , 485 n. 9, 119 S.Ct. 936 , 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because an IJ’s discretion to deny a request for a continuance arises from a regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 , we possess jurisdiction to consider the denial of a motion for continuance....”). 4 . A petitioner can also establish refugee status”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nda Seka v. Sessions
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.